1-independence-airlines.com

The timeline behind 1-independence-airlines.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Independence Air, Inc. v. Tropical Studios Maui Inc. a/k/a Mike Kerstein a/k/a This Name For Sale Claim Number: FA0508000538016 PARTIES Complainant is Independence Air, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James L. Bikoff, of Silverberg Goldman & Bikoff, LLP, 1101 30th St., N.W., Suite 120, Washington, DC 20007. Respondent is Tropical Studios Maui Inc. a/k/a Mike Kerstein a/k/a This Name For Sale (“Respondent”), 408 Front Street, Lahaina, HI 96761. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <1-independence-airlines.com>, registered with Enom, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Sandra Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 11, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 12, 2005. On August 11, 2005, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <1-independence-airlines.com> domain name is registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On August 15, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 6, 2005 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@1-independence-airlines.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On September 13, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra Franklin as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <1-independence-airlines.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s INDEPENDENCE AIR mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <1-independence-airlines.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <1-independence-airlines.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Independence Air, Inc., is a low-fare air carrier formerly known as Atlantic Coast Airlines. Complainant begin operating in the United States in 1989 and has since become well-known in the air travel industry and among its consumers. Complainant also provides air service to forty-six cities in the United States, employees approximately 4700 aviation professionals and had a net income of $82.8 million for the year ending December 31, 2003. Complainant has registered its INDEPENDENCE AIR mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,972,298 issued July 19, 2004) (filing date October 24, 2003). In addition, Complainant has several pending trademark applications. Respondent registered the <1-independence-airlines.com> domain name on July 4, 2005. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a website that features links to airline and air travel services that directly compete with those of Complainant. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true; see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”). Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant asserts that it has established rights in the INDEPENDENCE AIR mark through registration with the USPTO. See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”); see also Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”). Additionally, Respondent’s <1-independence-airlines.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, as the domain name fully incorporates Complainant’s INDEPENDENCE AIR mark in its entirety and adds the number “1, ” the term “lines” and multiple hyphens. Such changes are not enough to overcome a finding of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i). See Gen. Elec. Co. v. Bakhit, D2000-0386 (WIPO June 22, 2000) (finding that placing a hyphen in domain name between “General” and “Electric” is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark); see also Pep Boys Manny, Moe, and Jack v. E-Commerce Today, Ltd., AF-0145 (eResolution May 3, 2000) (finding that a hyphen between words of the complainant’s registered mark is confusingly similar); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. iDomainNames.com, FA 93766 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 24, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <go2AOL.com> was confusingly similar to the complainant’s AOL mark). Furthermore, the addition of the top-level domain “.com” is irrelevant in determining whether the <1-independence-airlines.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Blue Sky Software Corp. v. Digital Sierra, Inc., D2000-0165 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000) (holding that the domain name <robohelp.com> is identical to the complainant’s registered ROBOHELP trademark, and that the "addition of .com is not a distinguishing difference"); see also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) (finding that "the addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is . . . without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants"). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant asserts that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <1-independence-airlines.com> domain name. When a complainant establishes a prima facie case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to the respondent to prove that it has rights or legitimate interests. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel infers that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide credible evidence that substantiates its claim of rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such rights or legitimate interests do exist); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name). Moreover, Respondent is not commonly known by the <1-independence-airlines.com> domain name. Thus, the Panel may conclude that Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from complainant to use the trademarked name); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use); see also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc., FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in domain names because it is not commonly known by the complainant’s marks and the respondent has not used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). Furthermore, Respondent is using the <1-independence-airlines.com> domain name to operate a website that features commercial links to Respondent’s own website. The Panel may find that Respondent’s use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to divert Internet users to third-party websites for Respondent’s own commercial gain does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that respondent’s diversionary use of complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to competitors of complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Web Master, FA 127717 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 27, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate a pay-per-click search engine, in competition with the complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d 110, 114 (D. Mass. 2002) (finding that, because the respondent's sole purpose in selecting the domain names was to cause confusion with the complainant's website and marks, its use of the names was not in connection with the offering of goods or services or any other fair use). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to third-party commercial website. Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), as Respondent is using the <1-independence-airlines.com> domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. See H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto, FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) through the respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its fraudulent website by using the complainant’s famous marks and likeness); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website). Furthermore, Respondent has used the <1-independence-airlines.com> domain name, which contains Complainant’s INDEPENDENCE AIR mark, to redirect Internet users to third-party websites featuring links to airline and air travel services that directly compete with Complainant’s business. This suggests that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark when it registered the domain name and chose the disputed domain name based on the goodwill Complainant has acquired in its INDEPENDENCE AIR mark. Furthermore, Complainant’s registration of the INDEPENDENCE AIR mark with the USPTO bestows upon Respondent constructive notice of Complainant’s rights in the mark. Respondent’s registration of a domain name containing Complainant’s mark in spite of Respondent’s actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration); see also Pfizer, Inc. v. Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the link between the complainant’s mark and the content advertised on the respondent’s website was obvious, the respondent “must have known about the Complainant’s mark when it registered the subject domain name”); see also Orange Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2002) (“Complainant’s OXICLEAN mark is listed on the Principal Register of the USPTO, a status that confers constructive notice on those seeking to register or use the mark or any confusingly similar variation thereof.”). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied. DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <1-independence-airlines.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra Franklin, Panelist Dated: September 26, 2005 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.